Ed Do you like your cheese?

[arthwollipot]

Is there meaning without context? Surely there is no essential or inherent meaning.

One of Aboriginal activist Stephen Hagan’s other campaigns was over the E. S. "******" Brown Stand at a QLD rugby ground. As we have seen with the word coon, supporters argued for a contextual meaning that wasn’t racist. In this case it was the nickname of a lauded rugby player. The word it’s isn’t racist in its etymology. It is so because of its use towards black slaves.

That's right, and it is unacceptable in any context. Someone brought up the name of the dog in The Dam Busters. That's the same. The Lovecraft story The Rats In The Walls has a cat named similarly, and that's unacceptable too. The name of the stadium should be changed - preferably to the rugby player's actual name, since his nickname is no longer socially acceptable and let's face it is only a nickname anyway.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's right, and it is unacceptable in any context. Someone brought up the name of the dog in The Dam Busters. That's the same. The Lovecraft story The Rats In The Walls has a cat named similarly, and that's unacceptable too. The name of the stadium should be changed - preferably to the rugby player's actual name, since his nickname is no longer socially acceptable and let's face it is only a nickname anyway.

It is unacceptable because of a more significant context not because of essential meaning. There are no such things.

 

[Planigale]

It is unacceptable because of a more significant context not because of essential meaning. There are no such things.

Thinking on this post I wonder if we have reached a paradox. ****** is now unacceptable to be used and I assume auto-censor will substitute *. For entirely understandable reasons black people sought to possess and de-toxify? the term by using it themselves. But now the continued use within 'black' culture maintains its existence. Other terms we talked about are disappearing, but the continued use of ****** is now maintaining its existence in widespread use and maintaining its toxicity by the rule that only black people can use it. Perhaps we have reached the point where the best policy would be to universally stop its use?

 

[Emily's Cat]

OFC a coon hound was bred to hunt raccoons. And when the hounds were instead used to hunt down human beings like animals, "coon hunting" has a whole new racist meaning.

Generally used bloodhounds for that.

 

[EHocking]

Generally used bloodhounds for that.

And criphounds- so still racist.

 

[arthwollipot]

It is unacceptable because of a more significant context not because of essential meaning. There are no such things.

I don't know about you, but I certainly work on the assumption that words have meanings. Communication would be rather difficult if they didn't.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I don't know about you, but I certainly work on the assumption that words have meanings. Communication would be rather difficult if they didn't.

The interesting question we touched on is how they take meaning.

 

[arthwollipot]

The interesting question we touched on is how they take meaning.

I think that's a less interesting question than how the meanings they take spread from one context to another. Which is what has happened here. The meaning of a word in a racist context has spread to the meaning of that same word in the context of a business trademark. This context-shifting happens all the time - it is part of the way language changes over time.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think that's a less interesting question than how the meanings they take spread from one context to another. Which is what has happened here. The meaning of a word in a racist context has spread to the meaning of that same word in the context of a business trademark. This context-shifting happens all the time - it is part of the way language changes over time.

Yes, in this case, as seen often, many want to bloody mindedly hold fast to an insignificant name tradition in the face of an understanding of its racist meaning, while seeking to compartmentalise these different meanings. As you point out there are no cut demarcations in meaning, which is contextual and fluid.

These racist meanings hold their power because the inequities they are based upon continue to exist and don’t look like being resolved any time soon. Activists like Stephen Hagan are quite capable of campaigning against naming issues and the larger systematic problems they refect.

 

[rockinkt]

Except that it's not true.

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can disenfranchise and marginalise.

The only people who say that words can never hurt them are those who have never been on the receiving end of a barrage of hateful words.

If you had read my earlier post you may have discovered that I have had an unkind word or two sent my way.

Words hurt until you learn that they only have power over you if you let them.
Words cannot - in and of themselves - disenfranchise you. That takes actual intervention by human action. The "slippery slope" argument you are using is a fallacy.


BTW - If I get everybody on this forum to tell you to send me your money will you send me all your money? If not - why not?

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you had read my earlier post you may have discovered that I have had an unkind word or two sent my way.

Words hurt until you learn that they only have power over you if you let them.
Words cannot - in and of themselves - disenfranchise you. That takes actual intervention by human action. The "slippery slope" argument you are using is a fallacy.


BTW - If I get everybody on this forum to tell you to send me your money will you send me all your money? If not - why not?

Black people are disenfranchised. When a white person calls a black person these words they are reminding them of this fact.

 

[RedStapler]

If you had read my earlier post you may have discovered that I have had an unkind word or two sent my way.

Words hurt until you learn that they only have power over you if you let them.
Words cannot - in and of themselves - disenfranchise you. That takes actual intervention by human action. The "slippery slope" argument you are using is a fallacy.


BTW - If I get everybody on this forum to tell you to send me your money will you send me all your money? If not - why not?

I just told 100 people that you are a bankrobber and a murderer. They decided to come to your house. Will you run? If not, why not?

ETA: I also hired 100 black guys who will follow you around in shifts, constantly calling your a worthless whitebread. Do you think this will annoy you?

 

[Meadmaker]

Black people are disenfranchised. When a white person calls a black person these words they are reminding them of this fact.

And when a white person calls his cheese by the name of the man whose name is the same as one of these words, well, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

ETA: In all seriousness, both you and rockinkt could be right. The words, by themselves, really do hold no power, but they are used in ways that can project power and result in real harm.

In my opinion, when you go after the words, all by themselves, it's a distraction from the real issue, and it alienates people who might otherwise be allies. Demanding that someone change the name of a kind of cheese is a good way to get people to not take you seriously when you also demand that the actual racial slur not be used as a racial slur.

 

[arthwollipot]

ETA: In all seriousness, both you and rockinkt could be right. The words, by themselves, really do hold no power, but they are used in ways that can project power and result in real harm.

Words are never used in a vacuum. That the n-word is simply a physical description of the colour of a person's skin, derived from the Latin word for "black", is so much not the point.

Words hold power. Words are wielded as weapons, to marginalise and disenfranchise, and can cause real harm.

 

[Sideroxylon]

And when a white person calls his cheese by the name of the man whose name is the same as one of these words, well, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

ETA: In all seriousness, both you and rockinkt could be right. The words, by themselves, really do hold no power, but they are used in ways that can project power and result in real harm.

In my opinion, when you go after the words, all by themselves, it's a distraction from the real issue, and it alienates people who might otherwise be allies. Demanding that someone change the name of a kind of cheese is a good way to get people to not take you seriously when you also demand that the actual racial slur not be used as a racial slur.

Aboriginal activist Stephen Hagan is not distracted from the wider issues and how much time and energy would this campaign have even cost him? In the decades it took, the low key campaign for change drew little attention in national discourse of indigenous issues. Australia and even fans of mass produced cheddar cheese have lost nothing in this name change that is already being forgotten. You would not think so given the outrage it drew from a segment of white Australia.

 

[angrysoba]

In my opinion, when you go after the words, all by themselves, it's a distraction from the real issue, and it alienates people who might otherwise be allies. Demanding that someone change the name of a kind of cheese is a good way to get people to not take you seriously when you also demand that the actual racial slur not be used as a racial slur.

How does this work, exactly?

Someone says, "Right, you indigenous campaigners, listen up! I could have been an ally, but when you changed the name of my favourite cheese, I decided to use racial slurs because I can't take you seriously anymore!"

 

[Meadmaker]

Aboriginal activist Stephen Hagan is not distracted from the wider issues and how much time and energy would this campaign have even cost him? In the decades it took, the low key campaign for change drew little attention in national discourse of indigenous issues. Australia and even fans of mass produced cheddar cheese have lost nothing in this name change that is already being forgotten. You would not think so given the outrage it drew from a segment of white Australia.

I think that proves the point.

No, it did not distract Stephen Hagan. It distracted the segment of white Australia. I suppose it could be that that segment of white Australia was outraged because they were actually racist and objected to having to give up one of their cover stories about using "Coon".

Or, perhaps, they might be outraged because they are irritated that people are so determined to call them racist that they even have to rename their cheese. It's a nuisance, and it causes them to resent the people who are running the campaign. Don't these people have anything better to do than complain about using some guy's name on a package of cheese?

 

[arthwollipot]

Or, perhaps, they might be outraged because they are irritated that people are so determined to call them racist that they even have to rename their cheese. It's a nuisance, and it causes them to resent the people who are running the campaign. Don't these people have anything better to do than complain about using some guy's name on a package of cheese?

Yes, lots, but people are capable of being concerned about several things at the same time.

 

[Sherkeu]

Or, perhaps, they might be outraged because they are irritated that people are so determined to call them racist that they even have to rename their cheese. It's a nuisance, and it causes them to resent the people who are running the campaign. Don't these people have anything better to do than complain about using some guy's name on a package of cheese?

It seems pretty popular to find them.

Maybe there is a business idea here to have an import business of offensive 'sounding' products from other countries. I bet it would get a lot of free advertising as everyone must weigh in with twitty opinions.

Would some people get offended? or lean more to multi-cultural sensitivity?

You could also argue that only the largest corporations have the money to repackage or label things for specific markets, so they are shutting out the 'little' guy and serving the corporate masters. muahaahhahahah

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think that proves the point.

No, it did not distract Stephen Hagan. It distracted the segment of white Australia. I suppose it could be that that segment of white Australia was outraged because they were actually racist and objected to having to give up one of their cover stories about using "Coon".

Or, perhaps, they might be outraged because they are irritated that people are so determined to call them racist that they even have to rename their cheese. It's a nuisance, and it causes them to resent the people who are running the campaign. Don't these people have anything better to do than complain about using some guy's name on a package of cheese?

We are getting close to the issue in the second paragraph. White Australia is structurally racist and some are very defensive about it.